#and! evil often doesn’t THINK it's evil

[why-animals-do-the-thing]

hi! can i ask what's ur opinion on giving pets away? not necessarily because u can't afford to care for em anymore but maybe incompatibility of personalities or maybe lifestyles. is it wrong to give ur pet for adoption if u know someone who's better suited for keeping a pet, like emotionally?

This is going to be controversial, but I support making that choice.

There’s a lot of rhetoric lately around how it’s evil and unethical to rehome your pet if you don’t “need to.” And what that does is prioritize human ideology over the actual animal’s well-being.

Pets that aren’t a good match for your home or pets that aren’t really wanted anymore frequently have lower welfare! When caring for an animal becomes a burden or is forced, people end up resenting them, and that means the animal often doesn’t get all of its needs fulfilled. Even if you’re still feeding it and providing appropriate vet care, how likely are you to provide affection or enrichment to an animal you’re tired of being stuck with?

Lifestyle and personality really matter to making sure a pet is a good fit for a home. A dog that alert-barks at every leaf that moves is probably a bad fit for someone who has a chronic migraine syndrome, and they might not know that until the dog has been in the home for weeks and started to open up. A really feisty kitten that requires a ton of play might not do best in the home of someone older who wanted a quiet lap cat. And while you can you do your best to plan to find a compatible animal, you won’t always know ahead of time what issues might arise.

“Forever home” rhetoric is really, really popular and I think it’s very unfair to the animals it is supposed to support. It started with the backlash of seeing animals abandoned inappropriately, and has been heavily reinforced in the public mind because it’s so frequently used to drive fundraising and support for legislation. The whole “forever home” concept communicates to people that getting an animal is an immutable commitment and that if you can’t keep an animal, it is a personal moral failing. It frames human priorities (we think people who get rid of animals are Evil and Bad and should be shunned) as more important than actual welfare needs for individual animals (are they getting the care they need where they are).

Obviously, I don’t support people dumping animals or just getting fad pets they’ll discard immediately, but there’s so many alternate situations that can arise. Even if it’s just “they got a pet and didn’t know what caring for it would take and didn’t want to care for it so they brought it back, how awful” like… okay, I’d like the person to have done more research before they got a pet, but isn’t it better that the animal now has a second chance to go to better home? Knowing what a commitment requires theoretically can be very different than having to actually follow through regularly, and I’d rather see someone maturely acknowledge that having an animal isn’t a good fit than keep it anyway!!

If animals being happy and with all their biological, veterinary, and social needs fulfilled is actually the goal, we need to prioritize their welfare over human opinion. I’d much rather see an animal rehomed responsibly to somewhere it will thrive and be welcomed than see people keep animals they can’t/don’t want to care for out of guilt or shame. 

[maxdibert]

People always complain that Harry “forgave” Severus too easily, especially with the whole naming-his-son-after-him thing, and blah blah blah. First, let me make it clear that I think all of Harry’s kids’ names are an abomination. The fact that it seems Ginny had no say in them whatsoever is even more infuriating. I mean, I understand naming two of his kids after his dead parents, but I think it was completely unnecessary for Rowling to go as far as she did with everything else.

That said, I don’t think Harry forgave Severus. I think Harry simply understood Severus in the end. He understood why Snape was the way he was, what had led him to where he ended up, and why he had that awful personality. Harry is a character who shows an immense ability to understand the root of evil and empathize with other people’s motivations when there’s a good explanation behind them.

Harry decides not to testify against the Malfoys because he understands that, despite being a bunch of jerks, they did what they did because they had no other choice. He comes to this realization through Narcissa betraying Voldemort to save Draco and through Severus’s memories, where Snape and Dumbledore explain that Voldemort had given Draco no way out. Harry understands that Dudley spent his whole life being a jerk and a bully, heavily influenced by his parents, and that once Dudley became aware of how awful his behavior was, he regretted it and apologized.

It’s not that Harry forgets what people did to him; it’s that he understands that people have motivations beyond simply being good or bad. When Harry understands those motivations and sees that, in the end, they choose the right path (even if it’s not in the most orthodox way), he just decides to let things be.

I think the same happened with Severus, with an added layer of gratitude for realizing that, despite being a jerk, the guy ultimately worked to make sure neither Harry nor his friends ended up dead. Even though Snape couldn’t stand to look Harry in the eye, he still honored his commitment to protect him and followed through with Dumbledore’s plans. And I think that’s quite coherent on Harry’s part because, as kids, we tend to see things in black and white. But for those of us who’ve had to live with highly dysfunctional adults whose behavior we couldn’t stand, we often realize as adults that the problem came from not understanding the root of those behaviors. Understanding them doesn’t make those actions any better, nor does it make us forget what they did, but it does bring a certain peace because we can finally rationalize a motive. That makes it easier to close those chapters of our lives.

Harry understood why Severus did what he did. He understood that, despite everything, Snape risked and ultimately lost his life for a good cause, that he was willing to bear the role of the villain and endure loneliness for most of his life to maintain his cover. Snape sacrificed everything—his youth, his reputation, his personal ambitions, and his own life—to repay a debt. He always did what needed to be done, especially the things no one else wanted to do. Severus did the dirty work, and Harry recognized and valued that, which is why he considered him an incredibly brave man.

Dumbledore himself said that it takes a great deal of courage to stand up to your enemies, but even more to stand up to your friends. Severus stood up to both—friends and enemies. He constantly navigated between two worlds to which he never fully belonged or was truly accepted, much like the dichotomy between his magical and Muggle heritage. But he faced it all and kept going. That’s what Harry recognized, that’s what Harry valued, and that’s why he decided to clear Snape’s name and ensure he was acknowledged.

The fact that Harry could understand this while so many people continue to reduce Severus to a creepy, obsessive, and bitter man says a lot about some people’s lack of reading comprehension and others’ lack of empathy.

[fistfuloflightning]

Ohhhh I have lots, @alita-blue! But where to start??

This whole idea came from the mental image of a 4yo Yanli holding bby Wangji and declaring him ‘the prettiest doll she’s ever had’—she babies him a little differently from how she does jc, bc lwj is more of a delicate child in more ways than one and she hovers a bit more. But they grow up incredibly close and once wwx is adopted they’re one of the closest sibling groups in the jianghu.

Hope Limit doesn’t mind me quoting them because this stuff is gold:

And Lan Zhan, Jiang Zhan? Ah, he would make his parents sooo happy, but that family dynamic would probably make him so sad, parents that constantly clash and all that, it's getting to his inherent melancholic core. He'd be so fun with his two new siblings though, yanli loves little brothers, wwx enjoys a good match for training, and just imagine how nice the whole wandering cultivator flair of Yunmeng Jiang would be if lwj grew up embracing that, he does that so well already, I feel, wandering off and hunting evil. I always think he would be a happier person at Lotus Pier, together with jc though, so I do wonder how he'd be there all by himself, growing up in a lively atmosphere with the emotional struggle of his parents tearing each other apart for him and his siblings to hear and witness. he might be a bit more feared among the other disciples, textbook example student that he is, sticking to rules, not joining them when they run around half naked in summer, eating watermelons, bc he has to study and train and make his parents proud. I wonder if wwx would still enjoy to tease him? or is it something he grows tired of after a few years.

I feel like wwx and lwj’s relationship as siblings would be similar to wwx and wen ning’s. Wwx acts as shy lwj’s mouthpiece throughout childhood since he doesn’t really say much, which infuriates Madam Yu on multiple levels. Instead of ‘incompetent’ jc, she bestows her dubious attention on ‘cowardly’ lwj, as she sees it, unable to speak for himself. And sometimes wwx dives in to save from social situations he’s in due to his position as the Jiang heir. But he’s stubborn as well and doesn’t bend for injustices, especially when he sees how his mother treats his brother. This also probably gets him in trouble when at Cloud Recesses for the lectures—the Wall of Discipline is all well and good, but there’s some rules on there that he simply does not agree with because it obstructs true justice. LQR likes him well enough, but not his soft rebelliousness which is why he’s more than a little concern when Jiang Zhan begins hanging out with Lan Cheng.

And Lan Cheng… something about him going through Cloud Recesses’ version of anger management just speaks to me lol. Both their personalities remain the same, but Limit and I agreed jc’s anger would remain but be wonderfully repressed and due to the pressure of the Lan discipline, it would find a way to leak out every so often. He’d be the scary Lan. His parents’ conflict would wear similar but not identical paths in his psyche and I feel he would be incredibly protective of his mother, or at least be more vocal about the injustice of her imprisonment. His father… I think he would do everything in his power to have Qingheng-Jun look at him with favor, not understand why the man ignores him, then continue to throw himself at his own cultivation and training thinking he’s not doing enough. QHJ and JFM are similar enough in this aspect that I don’t see JC’s relationship with his father changing from one au to another.

More of my rambles from that convo:

I guess a large part of JC’s change of character comes from him not having to compete against an interloper, so to speak, for his place in the family (since wwx was treated as his replacement). As Lan Cheng, born knowing lxc is the heir and future leader and not him, and I think that might be less stress on him mentally (but that’s not including his parents issues…) He’s pretty independent and outspoken in canon so I see lxc not hovering or thinking he needs to protect his younger brother to the extent he did lwj. In fact, knowing from birth he is not the heir might be less stress in that aspect, less emphasis on trying to reach impossible expectations and striving to be perfect. But his need for positive parental support might push him more than other motivators. And yes!!! I love the idea that he’s closest to LQR! Their personalities seem very similar/kindred spirits. He’d still have his anger, but he’ll have to channel that into his training I suppose. He’s definitely the type of Lan to radiate an aura of pure rage with an obvious (thin) mask of serenity which terrifies most anyone.

He’s not nearly as much a protege as lwj was ao that might make him struggle a bit and frustrate him endlessly, esp when he has to see lxc do that same task effortlessly. He probably bonds with LQR over being the less impressive second born son and over the years his uncle tries teaching him ways of getting around that.

lqr’s biggest hang up might be lwj’s soft rebelliousness, though how much of that is just sheer stubbornness 🤷🏻‍♀️ he might not be vocal but you KNOW there are some rules he doesn’t agree with/think are arbitrary to the true righteous path and isn’t afraid of pointing them out. Maybe LQR doesn’t like him giving Lan Cheng dangerous ideas and questioning Cloud Recesses’ way of life? Like the rule about no pets (wwx probably still gave Jiang Zhan a pet rabbit when they were kids lol) and I honestly would love to see jc with a dog again, which is yet another reason for wwx to try (and fail) to keep his brother away from the scary anger-repressed Lan 😂

On that note, have some little fluff Limit added about Lan Cheng’s little note cloud puppy:

I’m sure I have more stewing in my brain, but this is what I currently have unless @limitbreaker23 has more to add?

Lan Wanyin, from a Zhancheng role swap cooked up with @limitbreaker23 💕

[tarisilmarwen]

"Thrawn's not evil he's just trying to save his people!"

He tortured a pregnant woman.

[caitlynmeow]

Lmao I really love how canonically Alcina said this to her daughters:

@ Bela: “I expect results.”

@ Cassandra: “you’re my daughter, act like it.”

And then there is Daniela and Alcina is just “have fun!”

[trash-can-sam]

What happens when your coworker kills your other coworker but both of you are in a relationship (kind of) with the same ethereal woman who had an admiration for said dead coworker.

+bonus Evandrey because it’s funny to me (I’m sorry Eva.)

[tender-hearteddd]

i can’t take any interpretation of bertholdt’s ability of being the perfect doormat being a good thing seriously lol i just hate it and it feels disrespectful to his character and the very mini character growth he did have. idk i also hate this interpretation of him being a dumb dumb shit for brains baby who can’t do anything for himself?? i just hate it. pple act as if he was constantly crying to reiner every time he ran into the slightest inconvenience like he wasn’t the piece of thread that was still connecting reiner to his true reality, so it was more like reiner needed him more than bertholdt needed reiner and if bertholdt were to live, i hope he realized this and had a more concrete character development where he grew out of being a doormat.

reiner had this obsession with being the perfect soldier/warrior to the point where he lost who he was, people would argue annie was the true epitome of what reiner was trying to be but she still couldn’t help but demonstrate her true feelings so in turn, i would argue that bertholdt was really the true epitome of a soldier.

and i don’t mean that in a good way.

bertholdt always kept what they are and what their mission was in mind even if he did enjoy his time in the cadet corps. and i don’t even think most of the cadets truly seen him as a friend, only an extended part of reiner which just makes his character even more sad 👎🏾 he believed that retrieving the coordinate would truly save the world from the genocide eren ended up committing (and it would’ve lol), he kept watch on reiner’s mental illness so he wouldn’t lose his best friend, and during the RtS battle, he carried out his duty as a warrior as he understood war after living through it all his life, both as a victim and a perpetrator that no one was truly in the wrong - so he did what he was supposed to do.

bertholdt wanted to do what was asked of him to put an end to all the pain and suffering of the future generations who now have to rebuild the world due to a global genocide. if the warriors have succeeded, the rumbling would’ve never happened however, marley would’ve used the FT power to further its global domination all over the world. they definitely would’ve used it to eradicate paradis. there were no winners in this at all. the colonized people in the aot world (like ramzi) still would suffer from the colonial empires of marley and eldia. eldians would still be exploited to continue marley’s wrath. but there still would’ve been a world to save instead of one to eradicate.

he understood first hand the failed complexities of aot as a story, being that war only has countless victims, bertholdt being one of them.

[primordial0riginator]

Me, the only Ares and Nyx shipper on planet earth: 😏

[atopvisenyashill]

the sociopath thing does irk me i will admit and some of that is i just feel it’s an inappropriate word to be using in the year 2024 (it's not a nice word i don't give a shit about its literary or metaphorical merits, of which it has none anyway!!) but i also think it’s functionally useless because sometimes people mean “this person has a scary disorder” and sometimes they mean “this person is ontologically evil” and sometimes they mean “this person is ontologically evil and i’m sad about it, how tragic” and it’s like. what are we talking about here. you can’t just be like joffrey/criston/ramsay/tywin/saera/cersei/whOever is a sociopath and expect anyone to think that’s a satisfying answer for why they act the way they act. “gregor clegane is a sociopath” but WHY. “no i mean he really does have like sociopathic disorder” that’s not a diagnosis and the range of things he could have that would make him display “sociopathic behavior” is SO VARIED. just say what you MEAN.

[sualne]

Idk if this would interest you, im just asking fellow one piece brainrot sufferers.

There are 7 sins and 7 warlords of the sea. Which sin fits each best? My main struggle is that Jinbe is without flaw so he doesnt fit in any sin nicely. Just 1am thoughts sorry to bother

oh that’s such an old thing the seven warlords sins i got flashback from when i was on skyblog lol.

i don’t really vibe with it because it doesn’t really hold up, i think Jinbei was associated with anger? but that felt like it because the other sins had been given out to the other already? what was Kuma associated with actually?

i don’t remember all the sins so i can’t really help you there, all i know is that i don’t like Boa being associated with lust because as is often the case with these things, she’s not actually lustful!!! it’s others that are horny for her! she even refer to sexual thoughts as “wicked” or “evil” depending of the translation!! and with her backstory it makes me mad tbh! ☹️

[fissions-chips]

Evil Tim AU where the horror doesn’t come from Tim being an unspeakably, brutally violent man (he has people for that), particularly towards Jon, but where the horror comes from how quietly and completely he manages to take over the man’s life by taking advantage of a bad situation.

Tim being less of a stereotypically abusive partner in favor of Jon looking up one day to find that every one of his allies has been ruthlessly killed, his penthouse no longer looks like it’s his, he no longer has any of his former power- and, try as he might, he can’t remember when things became this way.

[proudfreakmetarusonikku]

Tbh the whole metal sonic having a hedgehog oc thing is honestly so good. Yes. The murder robot also deserves the joy of dressing up as a character she made. Reminds me of those sonic ocs that edgy kids used to make that were basically just like. emoer amy rose or something. And I mean that with the most love in the world cause i was one of them kids. He is kinda just an edgy kid too. They deseve the freedom

She literally is my emoer Amy Rose from when I was like nine she is just also in universe Metal Sonic's emoer Amy Rose. (her outfit is actually very vaguely meant to resemble classic amy's since like, metal cares about like three or four people enough to remember them by name and amy is one of them bc, y’know, sonic cd, she considers amy one of the few living things that was useful to her bc she used her as bait she is in universe literally designed after amy rose bc metal was trying to exploit sonic's heroism for like literally two minutes until they started bantering.)

[please-picturemeintheweeds]

tw: abuse discussion, intimate partner violence, grooming discussion, power and control. Trying to be vague here and not fly too close to the muse Sun

Re: red tv and the manuscript discourse, I wonder if people realize that it is actually possible to have abusive/toxic/harmful relationships with people your own age, too? Like even if Taylor and jg were 2 years apart, harm still could’ve occurred….? Like it was obviously not grooming bc that is a very specific set of experiences usually involving a child and a person in a position of trust/power like a parent or teacher or coach etc (I know this bc I lived it!!!). But like… that is not the only kind of harm that can happen to young people???? Her youth/naivety was definitely a factor in how fucked up the situation was but it was not the only element. Power dynamics do not begin and end at age. Adults can fuck each other up, too…

[commanderthalys]

I’ve come to the stunning realization that Thalys gets really turned on by being called sir/mister/daddy etc. sorry that’s all

[starryoak]

I know I describe myself as this a lot, but I feel like my autism and non-religious upbringing combined to make me the most edgy Reddit atheist possible in terms of my beliefs, just because it’s always been mildly confusing to me that the proposition of not believing in anything that cannot be reliably physically proven to exist is the radical and controversial one instead of the obviously correct position to take and people get mad at you when you don’t automatically treat believing in unfalsifiable things as equally valid.

I intellectually understand why that’s not the case due to the long and storied history of religion spanning far longer periods of history than science ever has, but it still feels emotionally to me like the scientific method should have replaced religion as it became obvious that most religious texts make objectively false statements about how the world works and that science could explain things about the world in a more accurate manner.

I obviously understand why that’s not the case, but it still feels like it should be true that now that we understand more objectively how the world works that not believing in things that science can’t prove should be the standard way of thinking about things and not the radical position of the ostracized from society.

[lucky-dan]

I’m an art student, animation second year. We just finished projects about AI and we’ve had many meaningful and insightful conversations, lectures and even debates on the subject. I have a lot to say so forgive the long text.

The TLDR is that AI in itself is not unethical. It’s the background it comes from (as mentioned), mainly what data sets it uses. It’s not wrong to make or use an AI, so the debate shouldn’t focus around the question of whether or not AI should exist, which is something I’ve seen a lot.

The longer story is that the world of AI is… complex. Shocker, I know. And I often see people debate the wrong subjects as well.

The way you use AI matters - learning how to formulate your prompts is an art in itself, and some very talented people create incredible artwork with prompts that run hundreds of words long, and take week if not months of iterations. The human factor is still there, and a redditor typing in ‘Superman’ into mid journey isn’t the same as someone using an essay to generate a complex and detailed image, and doing that over and over until they have the result they wanted. So it isn’t a question of being lazy or uninspired or unoriginal.

AI art is also not only visual. As animation majors we obviously spoke about the possibility for the Everyman to use AI to make their own show without the monopoly Disney has on the market, speaking about possibilities for inclusivity and representation the likes you’ve never seen before, but we also mentioned royalty free and personalized music you can use in your YouTube videos, or generated inhuman movement that can be utilized in horror, or how inbetweening can be a thing of the past with a good AI. The one big thing I took from these classes is that AI art has the potential to shatter the well guarded gates of the beginner-unfriendly art world and open up new media for people without experience, just as photoshop allowed many inexperienced users to draw or edit pictures in a near professional manner, or how iPhones let you take very good photographs without an additional load of expensive equipment.

The big issue that everyone seems to not be fully understanding is where the data comes from. If you download someone’s art without their consent and feed it to AI, that’s infringing on their intellectual property. If you feed the entire discography of Michael Jackson to an AI to generate a new song of his, that’s also a question of ethics surrounding a deceased artist, but it won’t harm his income obviously. A smaller artist with no legal team has no way of defending themself when their work gets stolen. If the AI gets their art as data, their style is now replicable with a simple click, negating the need for payment for commissions and thus denying them their rent, bills, groceries.

Of course the question of ‘what if the wrong people use it for the wrong reasons?’ has to have come up here for the reasons mentioned above. And that is a concern that’s been present since… well, forever. Stealing work is a cultural issue, not an AI issue. Movies or games or paintings or songs that are derivative of one another, stealing each others concepts and design choices, are a thing that has been happening for years. And we can all unanimously agree that stealing someone’s idea is wrong. When you see on Spotify that has a beat from someone else’s song you get mad if the original has less clicks.

But being inspired isn’t wrong itself; and neither is decoupage, which is what AI art, especially visual, truly is. You wouldn’t be mad at BBC for making a Sherlock Holmes show because it’s ‘too close to the source material’ (it’s just an example. Don’t come at me tumblr) and the source character is in the public domain anyway. Nobody is being harmed by the network’s choice of inspiration. You also wouldn’t scream at a stay at home mom that’s journaling for fun, and you wouldn’t argue that her cutting out pieces of magazine pictures are her stealing the work of the magazine’s editors, photographers, writers. She isn’t profiting from that work, and she’s also not taking the money away from the magazine.

The approach of the non-art public to how artists use reference is also skewed, but that’s a whole new conversation for another day.

With both of those ideas in mind (the data sets can consist of material that wasn’t taken consensually thus harming the artist, and AI art itself isn’t necessarily lazy or bad) I feel like the debate on AI art should in general shift to legality. Most other art forms like drawing or movies or dancing or music have rather obvious, but still often blurry, lines that shouldn’t be crossed, and more importantly, court cases that you can reference. You’ve had musicians suing each other over stolen songs before and you have an idea of what would be considered stealing here. AI needs to be debated with the question of ‘what data set did this program use and was the idea for the work original enough by this and other industries’ standards’. This entire section of the art world doesn’t have that quite yet, but we’re getting there, with recent developments in the suings of multiple AI’s.

This is not a settled matter, and I don’t think we should be treating it as such, nor as if it’s the end of the world. To be entirely clear, just two months ago I thought AI was the devil also. It was these classes and word from people that are considered professionals in multiple mediums and art circles that changed my mind and opened me to the actual problems of the situation. My lesson was that I jumped to conclusions too fast. I now like to equate this problem to (even though I’m aware it’s not the same) the birth of photography, or photoshop or blender/3D. Painters were worried photographs would put them out of jobs, and sometimes that was true, but that just means the painters could use photographs for their own work as well, capturing more detailed reference, or choose to deviate their art from photography with style choices not present in the realism of photos. When 3D started being introduced people were scared animators would lose jobs, because why would you hire a team of people for a complex shot when you can render it out with one person putting key frames in instead? Well because knowing how to use that program is fucking hard, and there is a charm to the style of a 2D animated rotating camera instead of a 3D shape.

Think of how you can use AI ethically and without stealing someone’s food money, while still doing your thing and committing to your style. Sometimes it won’t be possible, because there is no AI that would be usable for your purposes, because the data set is always limited and focused on a specific purpose. Sometimes the idea that you have is just not possible to generate. That proves that AI won’t ruin the world, because it can’t do anything without human input, and it can’t make what it doesn’t know. It’s not a scary boogeyman and we should all remember that.

watching the AI art debate thing on twitter is a special kind of torture if you’ve ever attempted any irl political action in your entire life because it’s a train wreck of people trying to enact a movement against something and methodically picking every worst possible argument you could hope to make, constantly shifting the battleground from concrete territory you can actually Win into highly subjective areas that nobody in the conversation can ever decisively win

“all AI art is ugly” is a pointless cul de sac you have to re-argue whenever anyone makes even a half-decent picture, “any commercial art AI should have to demonstrate that it’s only working from public domain artworks” is material, practical and doable. “all AI artists have no passion” is a great way to give those people an avenue to argue you’re just being cruel and bitter (or for AI artists who also use traditional mediums to flat-out refute), “any art produced commercially by an AI should have its prompts recorded so we know they didn’t invoke another artist/their IP to make it” is a thing you can make laws and regulations about. “AI art is soulless fake art unlike Real art from Real artists” gives your opponents the easy opportunity to paint you as a backwards out of touch academic snob disconnected from everyday people (and uh, as an academic snob myself, good luck decisively solving the “what is real art??” debate for the first time in human history), “an AI can’t have any kind of conversation with the commissioner to understand their vision, it can’t truly understand what its making so feedback and precision won’t be on par with a real human, so if you want something accurate and personal it could be an inferior service for your money” is a tangible concern that anyone looking to buy art should be aware of, whether or not an AI can make a pretty picture is less important in practical terms than whether it can make the exact picture the person buying wants

you can spend all day arguing that as a human artist you have Soul and that your work has Life, or you can argue that as a human artist if the client wants their fursona’s right arm a little more to the left or for their expression to have more sassiness in it then you can just do that for them instead of arguing with a robot over what an arm is or the complexities of anthro marmoset facial features